NJCubScouter

None of those phrases are in the Bill of Rights (or the 14th Amendment, which matters when state law is involved.) The U.S. Supreme Court has nevertheless found that the Constitution protects those rights. For the right to "expressive association" (the right at issue in the BSA v. Dale case), I believe the Courts rely on a combination of the "speech" clause and the "peaceable assembly" clause, both of which are in the First Amendment. For the right to privacy, different justices have found it in different places, and it has been a long time since I have read those cases, but I know there has been reliance on the Ninth Amendment ("rights not enumerated"), Fifth and 14th Amendments (due process), and I think they also look at the Fourth Amendment even though it is not directly relevant. Some justices have referred to the "penumbras and emanations" from various clauses in the Constitution to find rights that are not specifically stated. The "right to marry" (Loving v. Virginia and the new case) is one of those rights as well. This article does a pretty good job of explaining what I am talking about, especially on the right to privacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut. If you really want to immerse yourself in this, there is a link in the article to the Griswold case itself including the concurring and dissenting options. It's not "light reading."

On the distinction between religious and non-religious CO's: It seems clear that the BSA is making that distinction for purely legal reasons. As indicated in the memo I mentioned near the beginning of this thread, the BSA's counsel has advised that a religious organization/CO would stand a good chance of not only winning a lawsuit, but winning at a very early stage in the case. Since this opinion is based on the religious organization's rights under the First Amendment religion clauses, this does not work for a non-religious CO. This is confirmed, more or less, in the FAQ that is linked above, although I noticed something odd when I read that. For a few of the questions, on this very subject, the answer is evasive or incomplete. I thought the whole idea of a FAQ is that the answerer writes the questions and then answers them. You don't often see a FAQ where the person apparently wrote a question and then evades the question, or ignores parts of it. The bottom line here is that if people within the BSA want to make this thing work, it can be made to work. There will probably have to be some realignment of CO's. Maybe some units will have to switch to religious CO's. Or if there is a Friends of Troop 123 and all of the members of the group share the same religious convictions, maybe they start the Community Congregation of Anytown, and do it in a way that does not interfere with their regular places of worship. I am not suggesting anything untrustworthy here; if the membership policy is religiously based, a religious organization can be created to carry it out. So I think it can work, if people want to make it work.

Ok, I just realized what that meant. This forum is not "Scouting." It is ABOUT Scouting, mostly. Scouting has its rules, this forum has its own rules (which are few in number) and general practices. We do discuss things here that would not be appropriate to discuss at a troop meeting. But Packsaddle asks a good question: Do you want to change that?

Stosh, if that last post was a response to what I said (which it seems to be), I don't understand what you are saying.

I am not even sure what "activity" you are talking about at this point. The "activity" that was addressed by moderators in this case was placing a photo in the forum that did not belong here.

If by "inappropriate" you mean that they are removed from the forum, it's not correct to lump these things together. I look at these things on an item-by-item basis and I think the other moderators do as well. I removed one photo, I did not remove the other one. Past "parade" pictures have been left in the forum, although one or two may have been removed, I don't remember. If by "we" you mean the BSA, it isn't "allowing the door to open to any of this type of behavior in scouting." The BSA has made clear that sexual activity and discussions of sexual activity are not permitted in Scouting.

Scouter99, I have removed the second photo from your post. I will respond to the post itself during daylight hours. But in a few words, I don't send Scouts to gay pride parades, nor have I been to one, nor do I spend my time scouring the Internet for the most lascivious photos taken at parades. I have no responsibility for what goes on at someone's parade. I am, however, part of a team that is responsible for maintaining some minimum level of decency in this forum. Please do not post photos like that again.

I endorse Packsaddle's approach to the posts in question. I do think there comes a point where the "give 'em enough rope" approach does not go far enough and stronger action must be taken. But lets face it, the idea that a change in the policy on openly gay leaders will result in an upsurge in sexual abuse is not a new thing in this forum - however many times that idea has been rejected by the BSA and refuted by many other posters over the years, including me. Scouter99 has expressed the idea more crudely and in a less Scoutlike manner than most, and has done so in a repetitive manner in this one thread, but I think several of our other members have dealt with it well in their responses. I also think that some of the more recent posts in this thread are things we can do without. It is appropriate to comment about posts and their contents, and to some extent it is appropriate to comment about the way others choose to express themselves (as I did in the preceding paragraph), but it is almost never appropriate to comment on other members themselves. For example, if you believe that a particular post is incomprehensible, it's fine to say so. But it's not ok to say the other poster is "insane" or to diagnose other psychological maladies in one's fellow forum members. That needs to stop.

Thanks for sharing that Terry.

I don't really want to be part of this discussion but, walk in the woods, I really dont think Benjamin Franklin was ever a slave-owner. Washington and Jefferson, sure, but not Franklin. As far as I know he was an abolitionist. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd sure like to know what it is.

Maybe it is my imagination but I thought I saw somewhere that the "arrow points" (the cloth arrows that went below the Wolf and Bear badges) were being eliminated. Is that true? I'm just asking out of curiosity and nostalgia. Contrary to my account-name, I haven't actually been involved with the Cub Scout program since my son crossed over more than 10 years ago.

I think I would chalk this up to a miscommunication, though I do think that someone (probably the SM) should counsel this Scout on how to handle a BOR question like that in the future so that the BOR members are not left thinking that the wool was pulled over their eyes. It also seems to me that if a disciplinary infraction is considered "serious", the Scoutmaster should inform the committee so that the Scout may be asked about it at his next BOR. I don't know whether there is anything in the SM Handbook that says to do that - I don't recall seeing anything like that in the Guide to Advancement. (I also don't know whether my suggestion would apply here because we don't know what the Scout did to cause him to be recruited to instruct the younger Scouts - which, I agree with others, is not a good way to deal with misbehavior.)

I guess you're right. It was probably the "somehow fastened out of view" part that threw me off.

Well, here is a photo of Prince William of the U.K. wearing a suit and tie and neckerchief (though not of the style I am familiar with) while attending the opening of the World Jamboree in 2007. (He's not actually a Scout as far as I know, but it's close enough. One of the older members of the royal family is the president of the UK Scout Association and William was apparently there in a supporting role.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge#Royal_duties

Has there been a big clamoring by people to be able to do that?

I doubt that this decision would have been made without the approval (or at least the grudging acceptance) of the LDS representatives to the BSA, and probably at least some of the larger religious organizations/CO's as well. Although I do not know who is on the National Executive Board, I have to assume it includes some of these same people, so they are going to get to vote on it. If the Courts were to later override the BSA's new local option policy and tell a religious CO it could not reject someone on the basis of sexual orientation, at that point those CO's might walk away. But based on what the BSA has published about this subject (some of which has been linked-to in this thread), I doubt that's going to happen.

That seems pretty important. Additionally, the same official BSA page that is linked to in the original post also has a link to a fairly lengthy legal memo in which the BSA's attorneys lay out the argument for why the BSA and the religious organization/CO would win such a case. I would not be surprised if one of the reasons why that memo is there, in a public place, is to try to scare off anyone considering bringing such a lawsuit after the change goes into effect. I have read it and it would give me pause if I were considering such a thing.

I didn't realize it was October already. But seriously, this is what the BSA needs to do, and when the final vote is taken (July 27), then I'll believe it's a done deal. I remember the last time the BSA appeared to be going down this road.

Sounds like violations of Youth Protection policies to me. Were there any consequences? (Other than the babies, I mean.)

AZMike, so far we know very little about what happened here, and we know nothing about the outcome, because Nitroboy decided not to tell us "at this time." We don't even know whether the alleged wrongdoer was a Scouter or a Scout, because he is identified as both in the original post. What little we do "know" we have been told by someone who knows the facts third-hand, at best. If you choose to draw conclusions from that, it's your choice. As for the YP policy, there were YP violations before there was any change in the sexual orientation policy, and there will be YP violations after. I don't think anyone ever said there wouldn't be. There is no reason to believe that the enforcement of the YP policies has changed or will change.

I don't even know what that means. The BSA leadership draws a clear distinction between orientation and conduct. If you disagree with them on that, well, welcome to the club. I disagree with them about other things.

Stosh, how you got any of that from what I said, I have no idea. The YP rules are not about orientation, they are about conduct. The conduct Nitroboy seems to be describing (although Scouter99 does raise a legitimate issue about exactly what is being described) violates the rules - and may be a crime as well, since there is a question about whether the perpetrator is an adult or a youth, and if a youth we don't know what the relative ages are. Unless there is something nitroboy isnt telling us, this situation seems to have been dealt with using the correct procedures. The camp director was notified of the situation. He/she presumably either notified the appropriate SE or made sure someone in the troop did so. The SE takes it from there.

Nitroboy, just out of curiosity, if the situation you describe were NOT handled as a Youth Protection issue, then what do you suppose would be the other options for dealing with it?

Nitroboy asked for confirmation that the events he reported should be handled as a Youth Protection issue, which is how it should be handled and, evidently, how it was handled. How the incident was to be handled has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of those involved.

By the way, nitroboy, welcome to the forums!